Boxjobox on modalism

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

BJB, how do you interpret John 1:18?

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Berean Study Bible
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.

New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 10:34 - "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

I doubt you've stumped BJB, but please allow me to interject. Obviously you know of other translations, and have selected the ones that support your proclivities.

As exemplified by the account of the adulterous woman, John has been meddled with -- the manuscripts don't agree -- and that's why the translations don't agree. In the ones you've selected perhaps a little 'g' god reveals big 'G" God the Father.

Plus, how could Jesus be in his own bosom?

Keep trying bro Trapped, you haven't cinched your argument with that verse. Exemplary try tho.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

John 10:34 - "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

I doubt you've stumped BJB, but please allow me to interject. Obviously you know of other translations, and have selected the ones that support your proclivities.

As exemplified by the account of the adulterous woman, John has been meddled with -- the manuscripts don't agree -- and that's why the translations don't agree. In the ones you've selected perhaps a little 'g' god reveals big 'G" God the Father.

Plus, how could Jesus be in his own bosom?

Keep trying bro Trapped, you haven't cinched your argument with that verse. Exemplary try tho.

There is no nefarious intent behind the translations I chose. The Greek word in the bolded portions is "Theos" which does not mean "Son" but means "God", so I went with the translations that were truer to the Greek. I don't know how much more to say clearly that I'm not looking for a fight or argument or potshots, but to have a conversation.

I realize I may not have explained the point I'm trying to make. I am not arguing for a Trinity. I am not arguing that Jesus is God the Father. Jesus cannot be in His own bosom. He cannot be sent by Himself. He cannot have forsaken Himself. He cannot have prayed to Himself. All that is ludicrous and nonsensical.

Jesus and the Father are two separate, distinct entities, just as a father and son in human life are two different human beings.

What I'm "gunning for" with BJB is just on the divinity of Jesus only. I'm not trying to show that Jesus is God the Father. I am only trying to grapple with Jesus obviously being more than just a man. Jesus is God, but He's not God the Father. If you want to say "little g" god, that's fine with me, since I think that falls in line with the C.S. Lewis quote I posted earlier about "God-kind". Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God the Father, must, by simple human logic be God-kind, just as a man having a son did not have a baby raccoon, but a baby man. They are both men but are not the same man. So Jesus is God (or god, or God-kind, or of the "race of God") but is not God the Father. To me all this makes sense.

BJB didn't address my question related to Christ's death, but kind of dismissed it. If Jesus was only a man, and not divine, then his death could only substitute for one other person. This is obvious. It's precisely because He's of the God-kind (with it's divine, eternal, infinite, all-encompassing attributes that humans just don't have) that His death was sufficient for all of mankind.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

There is no nefarious intent behind the translations I chose. The Greek word in the bolded portions is "Theos" which does not mean "Son" but means "God", so I went with the translations that were truer to the Greek. I don't know how much more to say clearly that I'm not looking for a fight or argument or potshots, but to have a conversation.

I realize I may not have explained the point I'm trying to make. I am not arguing for a Trinity. I am not arguing that Jesus is God the Father. Jesus cannot be in His own bosom. He cannot be sent by Himself. He cannot have forsaken Himself. He cannot have prayed to Himself. All that is ludicrous and nonsensical.

Jesus and the Father are two separate, distinct entities, just as a father and son in human life are two different human beings.

What I'm "gunning for" with BJB is just on the divinity of Jesus only. I'm not trying to show that Jesus is God the Father. I am only trying to grapple with Jesus obviously being more than just a man. Jesus is God, but He's not God the Father. If you want to say "little g" god, that's fine with me, since I think that falls in line with the C.S. Lewis quote I posted earlier about "God-kind". Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God the Father, must, by simple human logic be God-kind, just as a man having a son did not have a baby raccoon, but a baby man. They are both men but are not the same man. So Jesus is God (or god, or God-kind, or of the "race of God") but is not God the Father. To me all this makes sense.

BJB didn't address my question related to Christ's death, but kind of dismissed it. If Jesus was only a man, and not divine, then his death could only substitute for one other person. This is obvious. It's precisely because He's of the God-kind (with it's divine, eternal, infinite, all-encompassing attributes that humans just don't have) that His death was sufficient for all of mankind.

Trapped, great post, spelling out so many truths. What makes conversations with BJB so frustrating are his constant fall backs, saying we are stuck with Lee-isms or old church-isms about trinitarian-isms.

I went so far as to "compromise" with BJB and concede with a "two-person" God, the Father and the Son, in a loving and eternal relationship. But BJB won't acknowledge or identify what he believes about Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. Is He God or not? If not God, based on what? How then can He be eternal, much better than the angels, the Creator of all things, all-knowing, and how could He be sinless. How could He always do God's will, always know what the Father was speaking, always do what pleases Him, always be in the Father's presence? Until those few hours on the cross.

If it wasn't for the same errors inflicting the JW's and other cults throughout church history, identifying biblical truths concerning Jesus Christ, I would have stepped away from this unending discussion long ago.

[Boxjobox]

Trinitarianism is much like the theory of evolution. You have this scientific theory on where man came from, and the thought is that man evolved from lower species. The problem with that theory ( at least to me, I’m sure the students of that theory would disagree) is the “gap” between, to simplify it, between ape and man. So people are always looking for evidence to fill in the gap; a bit over here, a clue over there, a twist back there etc. But we’re is the overwhelming continuity of factual evidence- there should be realms of fossils to fill that gap.
So here we have the trinitarian theory. But stuck in plain view is the apostle Paul stating there is but one God, the Father- a most difficult, clear statement to ignore! But if we look over there, and mix what we find over here and twist this and that, voilà, we have gap filled. But where is the overwhelming evidence in scripture that God wished to present Himself to us as a triune being. Where is the overwhelming teaching that we are to put up Jesus as our God? Sorry, it’s not there. What is overwhelmingly there is Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ- overwhelmingly there!
Consider Ephesians- either it is a false book, leading us astray, or it is the teaching of Paul on the Christian experience, that in no way includes a triune god nor a Jesus is God view. Paul in that great epistle prays in no uncertain way that the believers would see and live according to the revelation of who God is and what He has done in bringing us to Himself in Christ. God is so portrayed in Ephesians as our dear Father, who planned, purposed and is fulfilling His purpose in us through Christ. He clearly explains the position Christ has been given, and we in Christ. And in keeping this revelation, in living it, Paul clearly says it involves One God and Father- not three, not two, but one. Either this is false and misleading, or it is the most important revelation we as Christians should live by.
God is God, Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. Why not accept it and live by this. Why live in trinityland spending all the time looking for gap clues, and arguing and dividing over that which is not overwhelmingly given in the scripture? After all, this is the revelation the church is to be built on. WL did not recover the Church because his ministry was stuck in a warped 4th century nonscriptural unworkable theory. A true ministry that would bring about a recovered church would be one that mirrors the ministry of Paul as found clearly in Ephesians.
Untohim is stuck trying to decent an orthodoxy that brought about church failure.

I got this e-mail the other day that said- referring to the covid thing and the closing down of churches here in California. Continue Worshipping Jesus. I had to wonder, what does this mean? how does one worship Jesus? Where is the Blessed be the God and Father, the Unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the ONLY wise God? We need a recovery of the Church, the house of the living God!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trapped, great post, spelling out so many truths. What makes conversations with BJB so frustrating are his constant fall backs, saying we are stuck with Lee-isms or old church-isms about trinitarian-isms.

I went so far as to "compromise" with BJB and concede with a "two-person" God, the Father and the Son, in a loving and eternal relationship. But BJB won't acknowledge or identify what he believes about Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. Is He God or not? If not God, based on what? How then can He be eternal, much better than the angels, the Creator of all things, all-knowing, and how could He be sinless. How could He always do God's will, always know what the Father was speaking, always do what pleases Him, always be in the Father's presence? Until those few hours on the cross.

If it wasn't for the same errors inflicting the JW's and other cults throughout church history, identifying biblical truths concerning Jesus Christ, I would have stepped away from this unending discussion long ago.

Ohio, I take it,it is not enough for you to accept the clear portrayal in the scriptures that we view Jesus as the Christ, the son of the Living God. Do you really need to have another Jesus, a god the son Jesus? The scriptures are given to us to relate to God and His Christ. If we were supposed to relate to Jesus as our God, I would say then that the footnotes of the WL version would be the correct NT, and the old NT did us a gross disservice. As I must point out Jesus himself, as quoted by John said that eternal life was to know the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent. I didn’t write this quote, John did, and I accept it, and would urge you to do the same.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, I take it,it is not enough for you to accept the clear portrayal in the scriptures that we view Jesus as the Christ, the son of the Living God. Do you really need to have another Jesus, a god the son Jesus? The scriptures are given to us to relate to God and His Christ. If we were supposed to relate to Jesus as our God, I would say then that the footnotes of the WL version would be the correct NT, and the old NT did us a gross disservice. As I must point out Jesus himself, as quoted by John said that eternal life was to know the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent. I didn’t write this quote, John did, and I accept it, and would urge you to do the same.

BJB, John wrote other verses too. And where is that verse that definitively tells us that Jesus is not God? Our guide is not your opinions, but the scriptures. This has nothing to do with Lee-isms from some footnote or church father-isms from some creed.

Let me ask, when was His beginning? When was there no Son of God, and then when was His origin, when did He begin, what was His birth date?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trapped, great post, spelling out so many truths. What makes conversations with BJB so frustrating are his constant fall backs, saying we are stuck with Lee-isms or old church-isms about trinitarian-isms.

I went so far as to "compromise" with BJB and concede with a "two-person" God, the Father and the Son, in a loving and eternal relationship. But BJB won't acknowledge or identify what he believes about Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. Is He God or not? If not God, based on what? How then can He be eternal, much better than the angels, the Creator of all things, all-knowing, and how could He be sinless. How could He always do God's will, always know what the Father was speaking, always do what pleases Him, always be in the Father's presence? Until those few hours on the cross.

If it wasn't for the same errors inflicting the JW's and other cults throughout church history, identifying biblical truths concerning Jesus Christ, I would have stepped away from this unending discussion long ago.

Thanks......boy was it an inner journey to get there. Truly never thought I'd be re-evaluating this teaching, that's for sure. If responding to BJB wasn't helping me sharpen my own understanding, I would also have stepped away a long time ago. Frustrating to continually affirm I am not talking about the Trinity, only to be immediately accused of being Trinitarian, when it's totally obvious through simple comprehension I'm not speaking of a Trinity. But, honestly, the Father being God and the Son also being God but are not the same God (in the same way a father is a man and his kid is also a man, but yet are not the same men) make so much more sense now, so overall its been valuable and I'm glad to be participating.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Thanks......boy was it an inner journey to get there. Truly never thought I'd be re-evaluating this teaching, that's for sure. If responding to BJB wasn't helping me sharpen my own understanding, I would also have stepped away a long time ago. Frustrating to continually affirm I am not talking about the Trinity, only to be immediately accused of being Trinitarian, when it's totally obvious through simple comprehension I'm not speaking of a Trinity. But, honestly, the Father being God and the Son also being God but are not the same God (in the same way a father is a man and his kid is also a man, but yet are not the same men) make so much more sense now, so overall its been valuable and I'm glad to be participating.

Me too. Long ago I decided that my goal was not to win an argument or persuade another poster. That would be far too frustrating, and discouraging, knowing some of the posters that pass thru these parts.

Firstly I write for the reader, the lurker, the passersby who might need something I have learned in my own journey. But I also write for myself, clarifying what might have been taken for granted over the years. Searching the scriptures is a great thing when it leads to discovery of life and truth in Jesus. Hundreds of topics have been examined in this way. Some things like the ground of locality, which I held for decades, has been readily discarded in the LC trash can. Other things, I am willing to die far.

I am thankful to have spent time in the Recovery examining all sides of this debate. We have studied verses in depth, which many just leave for theologians. Consider Paul's word in Colossians, "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily." This verse kind of shoots holes in everyone's theology. Yet I love it. And believe it.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Me too. Long ago I decided that my goal was not to win an argument or persuade another poster. That would be far too frustrating, and discouraging, knowing some of the posters that pass thru these parts.

Firstly I write for the reader, the lurker, the passersby who might need something I have learned in my own journey. But I also write for myself, clarifying what might have been taken for granted over the years. Searching the scriptures is a great thing when it leads to discovery of life and truth in Jesus. Hundreds of topics have been examined in this way. Some things like the ground of locality, which I held for decades, has been readily discarded in the LC trash can. Other things, I am willing to die far.

I am thankful to have spent time in the Recovery examining all sides of this debate. We have studied verses in depth, which many just leave for theologians. Consider Paul's word in Colossians, "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily." This verse kind of shoots holes in everyone's theology. Yet I love it. And believe it.

Ohio, I love it and believe it also all the fullness of the Father dwelt in Christ. But, Ohio, you better read all the verses in Col. 1 that lead up to this: vs 2 Paul speaks of God our Father, v3 the God and Father. I would urge you to read slowly through Colossians and look how Paul uses the terms God and Christ. Paul is not creating a new God for the Colossians but telling us plainly about the working of God by, with, in Christ Jesus to fulfill His plan. Realize that this plan also should bring us, the church to be filled with all the fullness of God. Remember what Peter spoke to Cornelius? For God was with him. Have you read through Acts yet and looked at all the gospels preached and what they said about Jesus?
A ministry for the recovery of the church should match Paul’s and not go off creating a false theology and selling it on snippets of verses.

Also, dig out your old Bill Freeman Testimony of the Triune God in Church History, I think that was the title, and ask yourself Why would such a book have to be written if the scripture so plainly portrays God as triune, and so clearly informs us that Jesus is God? Why did Freeman not include Paul’s statement that there is one God, the Father. If we are to know that God is triune, Ohio, are we supposed to pick it up from fancy stringing together of parts of verses? From a 4th century decree? From all the books and footnotes written since the 3rd century? The scripture is a pretty pathetic testimony if the main thing we are supposed to pick up is that God is triune and that Jesus is God. The gospels preached don’t say it, Paul didn’t preach it, John has Jesus telling us there is one true God, the Father, Paul tells us that the oneness of our fellowship is based on one God and Father.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Thanks......boy was it an inner journey to get there. Truly never thought I'd be re-evaluating this teaching, that's for sure. If responding to BJB wasn't helping me sharpen my own understanding, I would also have stepped away a long time ago. Frustrating to continually affirm I am not talking about the Trinity, only to be immediately accused of being Trinitarian, when it's totally obvious through simple comprehension I'm not speaking of a Trinity. But, honestly, the Father being God and the Son also being God but are not the same God (in the same way a father is a man and his kid is also a man, but yet are not the same men) make so much more sense now, so overall its been valuable and I'm glad to be participating.

Ohio, do you see what is produced when we start down the road of Jesus is God, and God is triune? Here is someone who is still trying to figure it all out. Perhaps, Ohio, you who see and understand the whole concept would want to help Trapped come to a full knowledge of God, and save him from going off the beaten orthodox path and introducing all sorts of strange thoughts.

I would think, though, it would be easier to acknowledge that the scripture is not in the business of giving us a trinity, nor of us speaking of Jesus as God, but that the scripture if clearly showing us that there is one God the Father, who is above all, through all and in all, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the son of God, who died for our sins, whom God raised from the dead and set at his own right hand, whom God gave to us, the church to be our head. This is the gospel that is preached, that brings us to faith, with which the Holy Spirit anoints.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trapped, great post, spelling out so many truths. What makes conversations with BJB so frustrating are his constant fall backs, saying we are stuck with Lee-isms or old church-isms about trinitarian-isms.

I went so far as to "compromise" with BJB and concede with a "two-person" God, the Father and the Son, in a loving and eternal relationship. But BJB won't acknowledge or identify what he believes about Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. Is He God or not? If not God, based on what? How then can He be eternal, much better than the angels, the Creator of all things, all-knowing, and how could He be sinless. How could He always do God's will, always know what the Father was speaking, always do what pleases Him, always be in the Father's presence? Until those few hours on the cross.

If it wasn't for the same errors inflicting the JW's and other cults throughout church history, identifying biblical truths concerning Jesus Christ, I would have stepped away from this unending discussion long ago.

Ohio, John, in revelation tells us that God was the creator- this is what the heavenly realm testifies of. This is where your Jesus is God thing ruins the gospel and what we should be considering, meditating on, concerning the man we have as our Lord, who was pleasing to God, who did his will, who was not sinful as we. If you consider this, you can see the marvelous thing, work, God did in Christ. We don’t have the relation Jesus did with God because of sin. Jesus, the man, who knew no sin could have such a relation with God. Now, because of his death,our sins are forgiven and we are brought to God. This is well worth pondering- to live by the faith of the son of God. This man is our mediator, between the One God and us. Let’s not look at our sinfulness, but at the sinless man, Jesus, our savior.
He is much better than the angels, because after fulfilling God’s will by dying for us, God exalted him to the highest position above all creation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, John, in revelation tells us that God was the creator- this is what the heavenly realm testifies of. This is where your Jesus is God thing ruins the gospel ...

This man is our mediator, between the One God and us. Let’s not look at our sinfulness, but at the sinless man, Jesus, our savior.

Ruins the Gospel?

The opening of John's Gospel tells us plainly that all things were created, all things came into being, thru Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, Who was with God, and was God.

Sorry BJB, but you have a different gospel, a JW version of the gospel. (Galatians 1.6-9)

How could this man be the mediator between God and millions of His children if He were not God?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ruins the Gospel?

The opening of John's Gospel tells us plainly that all things were created, all things came into being, thru Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, Who was with God, and was God.

Sorry BJB, but you have a different gospel, a JW version of the gospel. (Galatians 1.6-9)

How could this man be the mediator between God and millions of His children if He were not God?

Ohio- it’s very hard to follow your train of thought:
Before you said all things were created BY Jesus Christ. Now you are using the word THROUGH. If you would read through Revelation- written by John, you would find the heavenly realm speaking about God who created all things. Logos- God’s plan, His thought, His idea, His intention, was what brought about all of creation. Creation is not some random thing, some secondary joke, or whatever mankind wants to make it, rather it is here with the intent of God, to fulfill his purpose, which is to head up all creation in Christ. It was a mystery until Christ, according to God’s plan came. His plan became real, expressed, became not theory or mystery, but flesh. God’s plan was to have this MAN take on such a position- the highest in the universe!

I would encourage you once again to read Acts and see what was the gospel spoken, which the people accepted. You really should read through Galatians carefully also- Galatians in no wise presents a Jesus is God gospel, or such warning. Paul gives us the gospel he presents in 1Cor 15. You may want to read through that.

I have no clue what the JW gospel is! God raised Christ Jesus from the dead and set him as head over all things to the church which is his body. The JWs that come to my door seem to have no interest in the Church.

Why are you asking me how this man could be mediator between God and millions of men? Read the scripture! It’s exactly what Paul told Timothy. Very hard to follow your theology, because you forsake the plain written word for things that are not the word, and question the word based upon man’s teachings.

Yes, if WL would have been a minister to recover the church, he would have brought us out of the 4th century dogmas to the scripture. We, including you would have the greatest appreciation for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit would have witnessed to the truth, the church would be built on the rock of Jesus being th Christ, the son of the Living God, and God would have a great testimony, the church would be that pillar and ground of the truth, rather than confusion.

Why are we even discussing this- it’s because there is no trinity teaching in the scripture, there is no Jesus is God gospel presented, and Paul clearly told us there is one God, the Father, and Jesus told us the Father is the only TRUE GOD.
Ohio, accept and live by what is written in the scripture, not by some man-made god!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio- it’s very hard to follow your train of thought:

Yes, if WL would have been a minister to recover the church, he would have brought us out of the 4th century dogmas to the scripture. We, including you would have the greatest appreciation for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit would have witnessed to the truth, the church would be built on the rock of Jesus being th Christ, the son of the Living God, and God would have a great testimony, the church would be that pillar and ground of the truth, rather than confusion.

Why are we even discussing this- it’s because there is no trinity teaching in the scripture, there is no Jesus is God gospel presented, and Paul clearly told us there is one God, the Father, and Jesus told us the Father is the only TRUE GOD.


Ohio, accept and live by what is written in the scripture, not by some man-made god!

So obnoxious. This has become so tedious discussing anything with BJB.

I have continually based all my points on the scripture, using scripture to support them. Then, as is his constant modus operandi, BJB returns to 4th century dogmas or WL's Recovery teachings to tell me why I am some dreaded trinitarian. Then he tells me to read the book of Acts.

Talk about being hard to follow, do you even read all that has been written to you?

Let me make this one thought perfectly clear: I believe, based on the scripture, that Jesus Christ is God. I believed this long before my contact with the LC's.

Perhaps it's time to move on. You and I have nothing more to learn from each other about this subject.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Trapped

There is no nefarious intent behind the translations I chose. The Greek word in the bolded portions is "Theos" which does not mean "Son" but means "God", so I went with the translations that were truer to the Greek. I don't know how much more to say clearly that I'm not looking for a fight or argument or potshots, but to have a conversation.

I realize I may not have explained the point I'm trying to make. I am not arguing for a Trinity. I am not arguing that Jesus is God the Father. Jesus cannot be in His own bosom. He cannot be sent by Himself. He cannot have forsaken Himself. He cannot have prayed to Himself. All that is ludicrous and nonsensical.

Jesus and the Father are two separate, distinct entities, just as a father and son in human life are two different human beings.

What I'm "gunning for" with BJB is just on the divinity of Jesus only. I'm not trying to show that Jesus is God the Father. I am only trying to grapple with Jesus obviously being more than just a man. Jesus is God, but He's not God the Father. If you want to say "little g" god, that's fine with me, since I think that falls in line with the C.S. Lewis quote I posted earlier about "God-kind". Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God the Father, must, by simple human logic be God-kind, just as a man having a son did not have a baby raccoon, but a baby man. They are both men but are not the same man. So Jesus is God (or god, or God-kind, or of the "race of God") but is not God the Father. To me all this makes sense.

BJB didn't address my question related to Christ's death, but kind of dismissed it. If Jesus was only a man, and not divine, then his death could only substitute for one other person. This is obvious. It's precisely because He's of the God-kind (with it's divine, eternal, infinite, all-encompassing attributes that humans just don't have) that His death was sufficient for all of mankind.

Trapped, concerning Jesus the righteous man who died for our sins, read Romans. Paul gives us this view. God accepts it, I accept it, I hope you do too! Do you really want your gospel to be that God died? This would be different from what is preached in Acts.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Trapped, concerning Jesus the righteous man who died for our sins, read Romans. Paul gives us this view. God accepts it, I accept it, I hope you do too! Do you really want your gospel to be that God died? This would be different from what is preached in Acts.

BJB, to say that "God died" is an oversimplification of what happened. The physical body that the Son of God, Jesus (who is God-kind) inhabited, died. But Jesus (who is God-kind) in His soul didn't die. He took a stroll through Hades while physical life left His physical body. His physical body is just a shell. That's what died. Not Jesus in His very existence.

Just like us. We don't fear the one who can kill the body, but can kill the soul. The soul of Jesus Himself, who is God-kind, didn't die (i.e. be extinguished from existence) when His physical body died, just like our soul won't die when our physical body dies either.

God passed through death. His physical body died. He in His existence didn't die.

So far you've ignored my questions regarding how Jesus's death could atone for billions of people if he was just a man, as well as what's going on in John 1:18. And now I'll add another. What's going on in Acts 20:28 which tells us that God purchased the church with His own blood?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

BJB, to say that "God died" is an oversimplification of what happened. The physical body that the Son of God, Jesus (who is God-kind) inhabited, died. But Jesus (who is God-kind) in His soul didn't die. He took a stroll through Hades while physical life left His physical body. His physical body is just a shell. That's what died. Not Jesus in His very existence.

Just like us. We don't fear the one who can kill the body, but can kill the soul. The soul of Jesus Himself, who is God-kind, didn't die (i.e. be extinguished from existence) when His physical body died, just like our soul won't die when our physical body dies either.

God passed through death. His physical body died. He in His existence didn't die.

So far you've ignored my questions regarding how Jesus's death could atone for billions of people if he was just a man, as well as what's going on in John 1:18. And now I'll add another. What's going on in Acts 20:28 which tells us that God purchased the church with His own blood?

Oh bro Trapped don't tempt me to bring up the holy foreskin of Jesus (the God skin left behind when Jesus ascended to heaven). Bro Ohio hates it. Not to mention bro Untohim.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh bro Trapped don't tempt me to bring up the holy foreskin of Jesus (the God skin left behind when Jesus ascended to heaven). Bro Ohio hates it. Not to mention bro Untohim.

There’s no need for you to bring it up here as it won’t add anything to the discussion. It’s not worth my time as relates to the topic at hand. I’ve been around the forum long enough to have read what you’ve already written about it on other threads and can pick it up there if necessary.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh bro Trapped don't tempt me to bring up the holy foreskin of Jesus (the God skin left behind when Jesus ascended to heaven). Bro Ohio hates it. Not to mention bro Untohim.

And, Awareness, all the pieces of God that were ripped off the god flesh of Jesus when he was whipped. And when the centurion pierced Jesus side and out came blood, that too, I think should be god blood. And we know from all that God became flesh, and that God is eternal, and so that flesh is eternal, and when they plucked his beard, I’m not certain that beard is flesh, so we will have to defer a discussion on the eternalness of that, but as well, God is invisible, so maybe that’s why we don’t find the eternal flesh? And God is spirit, so now the flesh of Jesus that died ( but Jesus didn’t really die, only his body, which I guess is 100% human for dying but also 100% God and did not die.

And, it was Mary the mother of God that changed his diapers (breechcloths?). The angels were not given that job.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

And, Awareness, all the pieces of God that were ripped off the god flesh of Jesus when he was whipped. And when the centurion pierced Jesus side and out came blood, that too, I think should be god blood. And we know from all that God became flesh, and that God is eternal, and so that flesh is eternal, and when they plucked his beard, I’m not certain that beard is flesh, so we will have to defer a discussion on the eternalness of that, but as well, God is invisible, so maybe that’s why we don’t find the eternal flesh? And God is spirit, so now the flesh of Jesus that died ( but Jesus didn’t really die, only his body, which I guess is 100% human for dying but also 100% God and did not die.

And, it was Mary the mother of God that changed his diapers (breechcloths?). The angels were not given that job.

Because he became God there's even God placenta, finger nail clippings, toe nails, etc. This insidious belief goes on and on. They paraded the holy foreskin in Italy back in the 1980s, to be honored and revered. It's total polytheistic madness.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Trapped

BJB, to say that "God died" is an oversimplification of what happened. The physical body that the Son of God, Jesus (who is God-kind) inhabited, died. But Jesus (who is God-kind) in His soul didn't die. He took a stroll through Hades while physical life left His physical body. His physical body is just a shell. That's what died. Not Jesus in His very existence.

Just like us. We don't fear the one who can kill the body, but can kill the soul. The soul of Jesus Himself, who is God-kind, didn't die (i.e. be extinguished from existence) when His physical body died, just like our soul won't die when our physical body dies either.

God passed through death. His physical body died. He in His existence didn't die.

So far you've ignored my questions regarding how Jesus's death could atone for billions of people if he was just a man, as well as what's going on in John 1:18. And now I'll add another. What's going on in Acts 20:28 which tells us that God purchased the church with His own blood?

Now wait a minute- this is where the old shuffle takes place- 1st I get pounded because John supposedly told everyone that God became flesh. Now you do the switch and want to point out that God did not become flesh, but that the soul of Jesus was God, but flesh was not. So Now you use the term god-kind- whatever that would mean, which differs from the great claim that God became flesh?

As well, I don’t know where you came up with your John 1:18 version of God in the bosom.